User talk:130.157.201.59

Welcome!

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!

Your host, ssu-201-59.sonoma.edu (130.157.201.59), is registered to Sonoma State University and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.

To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free.

If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.

Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using {{School block}}.

In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

Educational institution staff and network administrators wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

sock inquiry

u R subject of sock inquiry here [1] LavaBaron (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Stop trolling the Frank Gaffney issue anonymously, or I will block this IP. If you want to attack users and/or disrupt discussions, kindly log in to your account to do so. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

July 2016

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for evading a previous block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

130.157.201.59 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All accusations against me have been false.

I am not a sockpuppet.

I am not evading. I have never been blocked before. There is no previous block to evade.

My comments were not disruptive. I was not trolling. You can read them. [2] [3] These are serious discussions.

My accusers have no evidence to support their accusations. I have asked. [4]

Decline reason:

Saying all those people were sock puppets was disruptive. PhilKnight (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fair enough. How should I express my concern that a group of editors seem to be acting in concert with each other to promote a POV that was not supported by their own sources until after they had protected a badly written page long enough for it to be the basis for a widely distributed press release?

Second question. Everyone, literally everyone who addresses the POV and accuracy problems in that area gets accused of sockpuppetry. Isn't saying all of those people are sock puppets disruptive?

Isn't it disruptive to delete my comments and post notes under my comments calling me a sockpuppet and troll after I was cleared of a false report at SPI? I was very tempted to do the same to my accusers, fair's fair and all, but I had a feeling that might not be as well received as the attacks against me. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for evading a previous block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 02:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

130.157.201.59 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for defending admin @Michael Hardy: against false accusations in an arbcom case! [5] So far I have been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of at least three different people Zeke1999, Frank Gaffney, and JohnLloydScharf only because I read ANI and disagree with an admin and they reach for the block button to get rid of someone they disagree with. I have never socked and did not break policy. This was a purely political block as was the block before it. Both blocks should be repealed and Bishonen should be stripped of his admin powers for this. Many people have asked for Hardy to be stripped of his powers which he never even abused, so it is not disruptive to say that. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; user is unresponsive to posed question. Yamla (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm considering your unblock request (other admins are welcome to respond before I go; my consideration is no guarantee of a response.) I'd like to be very specific here. 130.157.201.59, are you claiming that you do not have an account on Wikipedia? And furthermore, nobody who does have an account has in any way requested or suggested you make edits on their behalf, broadly construed? I ask because your edits seem remarkably similar to those of other editors here and, of course, you are blocked for 'Block evasion'. Also, for future reference, please comment only on your own actions. It's actively harmful to your case to claim an admin should be stripped of admin powers because of your block. True or not, a reviewing admin is here to consider lifting your block, not imposing one on someone else. --Yamla (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Sorry for the delay.

> are you claiming that you do not have an account on Wikipedia?

I had an account ten years ago when WP was new and abandoned it way back then. It has not been used recently.

Sockpuppetry is using multiple accounts to give the illusion of consensus or support. I have not done that.

I was blocked for being JohnLloydScharf. I am not JohnLloydScharf. That is the only question I should need to answer because that was the basis for the block and it should be the blocker's responsibility to prove his case.

> nobody who does have an account has in any way requested or suggested you make edits on their behalf, broadly construed?

A few Gamergaters have asked me to get involved. I refused. My single involvement there came after seeing offsite harassment and considering it worth posting to an admin board. No one asked me to do that.

Other than that, no one with an account or not has asked me to get involved, broadly construed. Not Gaffney. Not Hardy. Not Fram.

> your edits seem remarkably similar to those of other editors

Yes, that will happen when there are severe BLP and NPOV problems on the page of a TV celebrity analyst. Imagine if the Wikipedia page for Neil DeGrasse Tyson called him a "college dropout" in the lead as his job description citing the hit piece that was done on him. Some IPs and rarely used accounts would be concerned enough to become active. They would question this language. They would cite NPOV and BLP. Their arguments would be remarkably similar to each other. Does that make them all sockpuppets of each other? Does that make them sockpuppets of JohnLloydScharf? He was not involved in Gaffney. I saw his case on a noticeboard. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

130.157.201.59 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Second request because the last was abandoned and I have answered the questions.

I submitted evidence in the ArbCom case against Michael Hardy showing that the case filer had overreacted in a previous situation against JohnLloydScharf. [6]

My evidence was removed and I was blocked for "obvious block evasion (JohnLloydScharf)". [7]

I am not JohnLloydScharf.

I would like to be unblocked so I can complain about this in the talk page for the proposed decision before the case closes. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Discussion below makes it plainly obvious who this is - talk page access revoked for the duration of the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to the next reviewing admin

To the next reviewing admin: The reason I believe this IP is an obvious sock (or just possibly meatpuppet) of User:JohnLloydScharf is the second part of this August 11, 2016, post on the Michael Hardy RFAR evidence page. Not only is it about JohnLloydScharf (and startlingly irrelevant on that evidence page), but all the arguments are in detail the same as the quite idiosyncratic arguments JohnLloydScharf had made. For instance, JohnLloydScharf had insisted on the unusual notion that disruption is all right if it's posted on a previously blank page: this IP does too. It doesn't get much clearer than that. See WP:DUCK. I don't know why, exactly, NeilN had previousy blocked the user for block evasion, before the "tell" I noticed; I presume he saw some equally obvious reason to think it was. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Information posted to a blank page is by definition not disrupting anything. The information was relevant to the subject and from a source that is reliable for the information since no one has accused the source of fabricating and their numbers have held up under scrutiny. They have been compiling the numbers for over a decade with no problems and should qualify as an expert source by now. All ongoing discussion failed to establish that there was anything wrong with the information or the source other than "I don't like it" or "I don't like you." I suspect that somebody Googled JohnLloydScharf and found out that he reads Breitbart and talks nasty about Muslims offsite. He has not brought it here. Onsite, he broke no policy. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for mentioning JohnLloydScharf at ArbCom was because Boing also filed the ArbCom case against Hardy and it is evidence of the case filer jumping the gun and being too hasty in coming to conclusions, which is the whole story of the Michael Hardy case. My understanding was that all parties to the case come under scrutiny, not that scrutinizing anyone other than Hardy would result in a block. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, I thought the IP was Zeke1999 based on IP's LavaBaron/socking comments [8] [9] The IP also has a beef with TRPoD [10] who hasn't edited in months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LavaBaron called me "the sockmaster of 11+ socks [21] tightly coordinated to a professional WP sanitizer." The "11+ socks" are one sockmaster with about five socks, and about five different users with different writing styles who were all blocked as "Zeke1999 sockpuppets" on nothing more than the "DUCK" evidence that they disagreed with LavaBaron in a content dispute. I asked for evidence of the accusation [11] and he never came through with any. How is denying the accusation evidence for it? Read this again [12] and tell me how that is bad behavior on my part? 130.157.201.59 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Pen is one of several tagteamers mentioned in the offsite evidence that was compiled on Reddit which Bishonen keeps deleting as an "attack page" even though it looks like a well laid out ANI report and has diffs supporting its claims. I asked that the same "DUCK" test be used against the lot of them. I still don't believe that was disruptive in context, given that the context was "EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A SOCKPUPPET BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH ME!!! BLOCK THEM ALL!!!!" followed by admins saying "they do disagree with him, therefore they must be sockpuppets." Well, those people disagree with me and they all say the same things. DUCK test them. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my note for the reviewing administrator: The underlying content dispute is over how Wikipedia should describe an award-winning 30+year veteran of the intelligence community who has a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency on his staff and who is most well known to the public for personally catching the Republican Party taking bribes from an al-Qaeda operative and who has probably done a lot of stuff that does not get into the "reliable sources." Should Wikipedia describe him as only a "conspiracy theorist" and treat the opinions of his political enemies as reliable facts? Is it a bannable offense to say that such language belongs in a criticism section and not the lead? Because that currently is a bannable offense that several people have been banned for. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.